Today I'm neither Angry nor Happy about....

[William the White]

There was a brief discussion on halal vs 'normal' slaughter methods a few weeks ago.

Today Richard Dawkins retweeted a video. It's grim as feck, so do not watch if you're even remotely squeamish, or if you want to avoid the whole issue but it's here: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=545_1345800806" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It shows the differences between 'stun slaughter' and halal slaughter. The first video shows a calm-ish cow get shot in the head with a bolt gun and instantly fall down. The rest of the video shows restrained cows have their throats cut and then flail about or gurn.

Now, on the one hand, I've heard of horror stories that say the 'stun method' is far from as sanitised as shown in that video - which I think was posted by somebody with the aim of showing halal to be barbaric. I also *think* that there are a number of different 'regulatory bodies' when it comes to certifying what is halal and so am not sure that is representative of the whole. Nevertheless, on that evidence it seems a compelling case that the idea that halal butchery causes the animal no pain or distress is patently bollocks.

About 5 minutes later I happen to see on the TVs at work David Cameron giving a speech in Israel saying he'll protect the Jewish equivalent ritual slaughter of shechita. Nick Clegg has recently said he disagrees with the Danes who have banned ritual slaughter.

Now, I've very little time for the PETA nutters, but I certainly value animal rights more than I value religious freedoms in scenarios like this.

Thoughts?

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean you have more respect for the opinions of animal rights campaigners, in an intellectual sense, or do you wish to legislate in favour of these views - outlawing ritual slaughter and putting up with the flack certain to come your way?

[boltonboris]

I think he means he devalues the opinion of people who think that if you butcher a cow in a slow and lengthy death you go to heaven.

It's a ridiculous notion.. Most upsetting thing is, some intelligent, adult people actually believe this shit!

It's like going up to an adult in the street and saying, if you brush your teeth a bit harder so blood comes out of your gums, you'll go to heaven, if not, you'll go to hell and them actually believing it!!!

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I think he means he devalues the opinion of people who think that if you butcher a cow in a slow and lengthy death you go to heaven.

It's a ridiculous notion.. Most upsetting thing is, some intelligent, adult people actually believe this shit!

It's like going up to an adult in the street and saying, if you brush your teeth a bit harder so blood comes out of your gums, you'll go to heaven, if not, you'll go to hell and them actually believing it!!!

^ this, with f*cking knobs on.

[Beefheart]

I was watching a documentary on this recently. It seems the vast majority of halal slaughter (around 85% I think they said), is done with the animal first being stunned. The only difference between normal slaughter being the saying of a prayer. They believe they have to say this prayer as they are forbidden from killing animals for no reason. The reason for the 15% is that some people think the animal needs to hear the prayer, and so must be conscious.

However, it seemed for Kosher slaughter there was a bigger issue, with again a belief that the animal must be conscious when slaughtered but with the added complication that some of this would likely get in to the normal food chain, as a result of the fact that they can only eat meat from the front half of the animal, so what happens to the other half?

All seems a load of bollocks to me. I definitely couldn't be Jewish, there are far too many rules.

[Bruce Rioja]

I've taken pigs to slaughter - once when I was about 14. I refused to go again. Absolutely fecking barbaric.

[malcd1]

I think he means he devalues the opinion of people who think that if you butcher a cow in a slow and lengthy death you go to heaven.

It's a ridiculous notion.. Most upsetting thing is, some intelligent, adult people actually believe this shit!

It's like going up to an adult in the street and saying, if you brush your teeth a bit harder so blood comes out of your gums, you'll go to heaven, if not, you'll go to hell and them actually believing it!!!

^ this, with f*cking knobs on.

And with bells on.

[Prufrock]

There was a brief discussion on halal vs 'normal' slaughter methods a few weeks ago.

Today Richard Dawkins retweeted a video. It's grim as feck, so do not watch if you're even remotely squeamish, or if you want to avoid the whole issue but it's here: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=545_1345800806" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It shows the differences between 'stun slaughter' and halal slaughter. The first video shows a calm-ish cow get shot in the head with a bolt gun and instantly fall down. The rest of the video shows restrained cows have their throats cut and then flail about or gurn.

Now, on the one hand, I've heard of horror stories that say the 'stun method' is far from as sanitised as shown in that video - which I think was posted by somebody with the aim of showing halal to be barbaric. I also *think* that there are a number of different 'regulatory bodies' when it comes to certifying what is halal and so am not sure that is representative of the whole. Nevertheless, on that evidence it seems a compelling case that the idea that halal butchery causes the animal no pain or distress is patently bollocks.

About 5 minutes later I happen to see on the TVs at work David Cameron giving a speech in Israel saying he'll protect the Jewish equivalent ritual slaughter of shechita. Nick Clegg has recently said he disagrees with the Danes who have banned ritual slaughter.

Now, I've very little time for the PETA nutters, but I certainly value animal rights more than I value religious freedoms in scenarios like this.

Thoughts?

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean you have more respect for the opinions of animal rights campaigners, in an intellectual sense, or do you wish to legislate in favour of these views - outlawing ritual slaughter and putting up with the flack certain to come your way?

Certainly the first, maybe the second.

When it comes to weighing up the rights concerned, I give far more weight to the animal's right to die as painless a death as possible than I do to the rights of the end buyers of the meat to have their meat butchered in accordance with their religious principles. One involves pain and suffering, one adherence to a religious text or custom. So for me, I think the law should mean that animals can only be slaughtered in a way which seeks to minimise the pain and distress caused.

If it can be done so that it is still halal or kosher then great. I said originally that I had a vague notion that not all halal processes were the same and what BH says seems to bear that out. If the process is the same as conventional slaughter but with the addition of a prayer, or if another satisfactory method can be found which minimises pain and distress then sure, that (the addition of the ritual) is not doing anyone (or thing) any harm. My point was I've often heard it argued that simply slitting the throat incapacitates the animal rendering it immediately unconscious, and is as humane if not more humane than conventional slaughter. That video proves that to be emphatically not the case.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

My point was I've often heard it argued that simply slitting the throat incapacitates the animal rendering it immediately unconscious, and is as humane if not more humane than conventional slaughter. That video proves that to be emphatically not the case.

Never has been the case and never will and yet it is repeatedly rolled out by pro-religious arseholes time after time. the Times ran a full front page article running on onto a second page inside featuring some feckin Halal slaughterer in Birmingham, claiming (because his knives were very sharp) that it rendered the entire thing painless and humane - utter fecking bullshit and tripe.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

My point was I've often heard it argued that simply slitting the throat incapacitates the animal rendering it immediately unconscious, and is as humane if not more humane than conventional slaughter. That video proves that to be emphatically not the case.

Never has been the case and never will and yet it is repeatedly rolled out by pro-religious arseholes time after time. the Times ran a full front page article running on onto a second page inside featuring some feckin Halal slaughterer in Birmingham, claiming (because his knives were very sharp) that it rendered the entire thing painless and humane - utter fecking bullshit and tripe.

Someone should borrow his knife and test it on the fella. He can put his neck where his mouth is.

[Bruce Rioja]

My point was I've often heard it argued that simply slitting the throat incapacitates the animal rendering it immediately unconscious, and is as humane if not more humane than conventional slaughter. That video proves that to be emphatically not the case.

Never has been the case and never will and yet it is repeatedly rolled out by pro-religious arseholes time after time. the Times ran a full front page article running on onto a second page inside featuring some feckin Halal slaughterer in Birmingham, claiming (because his knives were very sharp) that it rendered the entire thing painless and humane - utter fecking bullshit and tripe.

There was a bloke being interviewed on the wireless a bit back saying that all meat served up in school meals should be Halal - his reason being that it doesn't matter to the rest of us how the animals are killed. I was fecking blazing, me. Bristling with great anger and a furious rage. I calmed down after a bit like but it was one of those episodes after which I had to wipe spittle off of the dashboard.

[Bruce Rioja]

Someone should borrow his knife and test it on the fella. He can put his neck where his mouth is.

Or his ballsack.

[William the White]

I can understand the anger here. But no one - as yet - is saying openly that we should legislate to make it illegal.

We know the level of protest that this will entail from Jews and Moslems (I'm not sure if other religions have the bloodletting requirement). It's also likely that the law will be ignored in very many places and that there will be a significant number - perhaps a large number - of criminal cases which will become focal points for protest. Whole communities - possibly over a million - will be offended, many to the point of outrage.

That is, almost inevitably, the price that will have to be paid.

Is it worth it? Cameron has just said 'no'.

I can't see either main party legislating this. But should they?

[boltonboris]

Thing is, if a supermarket takes a stance, the chances are, that supermarket is going to get a right royal load of shit from whatever party they've upset.

Should be clear guidelines on the packaging. HALAL BEEF / NON-HALAL BEEF.

Give everybody the opportunity to make up their own minds.

You can't force non-halal meat on Muslims (or Moslems, as WTW likes to say) the same way, I wouldn't want Halal meat forced on me.

I don't give THAT much of a f*ck though. we're still all eating dead animals. They majority of the uproar will be from the EDL lot.

EDIT: And the facebook lot. "if they dont like are meat, they can go 'ome" despite 'them' being born here...

[Prufrock]

I can understand the anger here. But no one - as yet - is saying openly that we should legislate to make it illegal.

We know the level of protest that this will entail from Jews and Moslems (I'm not sure if other religions have the bloodletting requirement). It's also likely that the law will be ignored in very many places and that there will be a significant number - perhaps a large number - of criminal cases which will become focal points for protest. Whole communities - possibly over a million - will be offended, many to the point of outrage.

That is, almost inevitably, the price that will have to be paid.

Is it worth it? Cameron has just said 'no'.

I can't see either main party legislating this. But should they?

It was a fairly 'hot topic' on Dawkins' twitter with strong support. There was a link to a change.org petition with 30-odd thousand signatures calling for a ban too. Doesn't look like any party supports it, not even UKIP (though the only thing I can find on them is them distancing themselves from one of their nutters having a massive anti-muslim rant which included a call for a halal ban). The RSPCA support a mandatory requirement that animals be stunned. A number of other secular organisations support it too.

I think you're second paragraph is arguably true, but that's a poor reason to not do it! It should be argued on its merits, and if the case for banning it wins, anybody who breaks that law should be prosecuted. I'd also worry about what Boris says about the EDL and their ilk getting involved, but again, poor reason not to do it.

I used to not care that much, but that video is horrendous. Ideally, everyone would take the sensible view that it can still be halal if it's stunned. If not, tough, don't eat meat. There is already a law saying all animals must be stunned before slaughter. We got to the point where we decided it wasn't ok to cause unnecessary suffering, and then decided, actually it was in some circumstances. My point is religious ritual is a shit reason for an exception.

[jaffka]

That video is horrific.

Completely unacceptable that animals should be butchered in that way.

[bobo the clown]

There are many aspects of Muslim life which appear incompatible with living in 'the West'. Sharia Law, Honour Killings, Women's rights, this sort of slaughter ... probably many more. However "multi-culturalism" as defined by the Blair years was not a matter of welcoming people from other cultures to these shores and help them integrate .... but specifically to encourage their cultures to be maintained.

This is simply an example of that.

A bit too late to close that door easily I'm afraid.

[Prufrock]

Scratch what I said above, partially, anyway.

I don't agree with you Bobes, I don't think any of those things other than 'halal' meat are actually part of mainstream 'Muslim Life'. I know and work with a lot of muslims, and don't know any who don't abhor honour killings, who don't have developed ideas of womens' rights or who advocate the use of sharia law other than in certain narrow circumstances (so we're talking the resolution of financial disputes in a voluntary framework).

I work with six young muslims all in their twenties (one is half muslim, half hindu): two guys and four girls. Only one girl wears a scarf (and she's got one of the guy wrapped around her little finger, she's no 'submissive'). Two drink. Five eat halal only meat. They're all perfectly normal young generally liberal people. We also have a lot of gay people in the office and there is no tension or problems. The idea of a generation of young Anjem Choudrys is bollocks. If the aim of 'multiculturalism' is to prevent integration (which is a nonsense) then it failed. They haven't given up their families customs but have adapted them. We have absolutely no problems.

Now, to go back to the scratching what I said above: scratch the bit about it having to cause lots of problems with Jews and Muslims. The RSPCA reckon 88% of all animals killed for halal meat are stunned before they are slaughtered, including all chickens. So it's clearly not a massive deal anyway. TBF, even if it was all non-stunned my position would be the same, but actually it sounds like it wouldn't be much of a massive deal practically anyway, as any muslim who has eaten chicken has eaten a stunned animal. In New Zealand all animals are either stunned before the cut is made or immediately after (it sounds like unlike halal, most if not all kosher stuff 'has' to be conscious when the cut is made). So do that!

So yeah. Get rid of the exception.

[bobo the clown]

It wasn't to PREVENT it, but to make it unnecessary. To actively encourage people who didn't want to integrate.

I'm highly delighted if the reality is that most are not operating that way, but it may just be that in professional offices you aren't meeting the ones that are failing to integrate. Just a thought.

[TANGODANCER]

In terms of believing in God, I'm as religious as the next man. What I've always contended is that man interfering in anything outside the Ten Commandments isn't the word of God but the word of man. It really distresses me to think that man can't or won't understand that a merciful and compassionate God wouldn't insist that primitive rules and customs from times B.C would be observed three thousand years later in the same barbaric way they were in the time of the Old Testament (if he ever intended that in the first place anyway) . That isn't religion, it's outdated tradition. Now where can I get the jawbone of an ass to punish the offenders?

Read about the crazy power rules made by priests and temple guardians over the course of time ( human sacrifice, mass slaughter and blatant murder not the least) in the name of religion and it all seems so stupid that anybody listens or obeys things that are blatantly little or nothing to do with believing in God or obeying His Commandments. Many animals finish up on the tables of us cannibals anyway, but unnecesary suffering for them shouldn't be a part of that by whatever name you call it.

[Worthy4England]

Without straying into politics (coz Bobo doesn't do politics), multi-cultural integration since the 1950's hasn't worked, let alone "through the Blair years".

I think it's failed badly under all persuasions since then.